Dec
16
Sane, but Very Confused, part 2 of 2
“If anyone asserts the fabulous preexistence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.” — ‘The Anathemas against Origen’, attached to the decrees of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, A.D. 545, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers
This week we continue addressing the various claims of “Sane guy”. You can reference Part 1 for the full quote and background, but the relevant parts are quoted in each section below.
Reincarnation
“Pope Vigilius refused to sign off on reincarnation being kicked out of the [Christian] religion and was arrested back when the emperor of Rome originally decided to take out the believe of reincarnation which Christ believed in and it is in the bible Christ says John the Baptist was the reincarnation of Elijah google that.”
Jesus, the Jewish Messiah, believed in reincarnation? Really?!! It amazes me that some people still fall for this, yet it is touted by a few on the fringe as a “lost doctrine of Christianity”. Their argumentation involves isolated and shallow readings of Scripture passages and a revisionist, conspiracy-minded view of history, particularly where the Early Christian Church is involved. But, as author/apologist Greg Koukl has put it, trying to incorporate reincarnation into biblical doctrine makes as much sense as putting a carburetor on a blender or a computer. Within the broader context of Christian theology, reincarnation sticks out like a sore thumb (‘cuz it doesn’t belong) and does nothing for you.
Basic Christian theology teaches that all people are sinners in rebellion to God. Individuals who accept Jesus Christ as their sovereign Lord and Savior obtain forgiveness and their souls/spirits go to Heaven, while those who do not accept Him go to Hell. There is no room in there for the transmigration of the soul and multiple rebirths/lives for the purpose of working off karmic debt, nor did Jesus or the Apostles ever teach it. In fact, while discussing Jesus as the perfect sacrifice, the author of the Book of Hebrews states that “it is appointed for people to die once — and after this, judgment…” (Heb. 9:27 (HCSB)). (Note: I suppose the counterargument might be that the death in view here applies only to each one’s soul inhabits. But, that would be very awkward given the context of the overall message.)
Contrary to “Sane guy”‘s claim, Matt. 11:14 does not say that John the Baptist was the reincarnation of Elijah, though I can see how one infer that at first reading. Here it is with a few surrounding verses:
“12 From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been suffering violence, and the violent have been seizing it by force. 13 For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John; 14 if you’re willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who is to come. 15 Anyone who has ears should listen!” — Matt. 11:12-15 (HCSB)
This is in the midst of Jesus singing the praises of John the Baptist and explaining his place in history. The “Elijah who is to come” is a reference to God’s promise to the prophet Malachi:
“5 Look, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome Day of the Lord comes.” — Mal. 4:5 (HCSB)
Because of this, there may have been confusion among some first-century Jews that Elijah himself would physically return to live on Earth again. Also, in an earlier callback to Malachi, the angel Gabriel proclaimed that John the Baptist would go before the Lord “in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17). But, John himself insisted that he was not Elijah in that sense (John 1:21). A couple more salient points: 1) Elijah never died, since God took him up into heaven in a whirlwind (II Kings 2:11). 2) After John’s execution, Elijah did indeed briefly return (as an adult) to Earth with Moses, when they appeared and spoke with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17). So, there could not have been any transmigration of his soul for rebirth, etc.
We must conclude, then, that John the Baptist was indeed strongly identified with Elijah even by Jesus, but only in a symbolic sense. Furthermore, while some may try to shoehorn some aspects of reincarnation into the Bible, it just doesn’t work within the Christian theological system, which is in turn rooted in ancient Judaism.
As for the Pope and the Emperor,…
The controversy here actually begins with the writings of an Early Church Father of the 3rd-century. Origen (AD 185-254) was a prolific writer, expositor, beloved teacher, and defender against heresy. But, while his teaching was always rooted in the gospel, he felt free to speculate (and boldly so) on things the Church had not definitively spoken on and where he felt the Bible was also not clear. One of his odder speculations was the “preexistence of souls”, which led (and still leads) some to think he taught flat-out reincarnation. We actually don’t know for sure whether or not Origen taught reincarnation, but his speculations are the basis for “Sane guy”‘s claim. [See Wikipedia quote #1 below.]
In the mid-6th century, a group of Origen’s followers called the ‘Isochristoi’ got in trouble for promoting this doctrine — or, at least, some version of it. A rival faction convinced Emperor Justinian I (AD 527-565) — generally a stickler for orthodoxy — that the Isochristoi were a threat, so a local synod was called to denounce them (and Origen) as heretics. The emperor then ordered Origen’s writings to be burned.
A couple years later and for reasons both political and doctrinal (though, as far as I can tell, unrelated to Origenism/reincarnation), the emperor ordered Pope Vigilius (AD 537-555) forcibly relocated from Rome to Constantinople, essentially holding him captive. Vigilius seems to have had freedom to conduct Church business, but he and the emperor were alternately working together and estranged. During a couple of those latter periods, the pope was forced to temporarily take sanctuary in a church.
In 553, Justinian called the Second Council of Constantinople (aka Fifth Ecumenical Council), the primary purpose for which was to get Church leaders to confirm Justinian’s condemnation by imperial edict (551) of “The Three Chapters” (i.e., the persons and/or writings of three non-Chalcedonian theologians). Vigilius was indeed reluctant to give Justinian what he wanted, as were the other Western representatives, because they were “for the most part ignorant of Greek and therefore unable to judge the incriminated writings for themselves.” But, that was about the “Three Chapters Controversy”, not about Origen or reincarnation. [See Wikipedia quote #2 below.]
As a proponent of established orthodoxy (e.g., Trinitarianism, the Incarnation), it is not surprising that Justinian would want to eradicate any doctrines of reincarnation from the Church. But, it wasn’t part of the Council’s official agenda. Rather, in the early stages of the council, it appears that a side-project was undertaken to address the Origenist problem. An open letter was circulated which condemned Origen as leader of the Isochristoi and essentially repeated the edict issued by the Synod of Constantinople in 543. While Origen was condemned as a Christological heretic in the eleventh anathema produced by the council, he wasn’t mentioned in the proceedings that Vigilius eventually signed. I wouldn’t be surprised if Vigilius was against any hint of reincarnation being accepted by the Church. Regardless, the picture of his “arrest”, etc., given by “Sane guy” and others is clearly a mischaracterization of events. [See Wikipedia quote #3 below.]
The main thing to remember here, though, is that reincarnation wasn’t “kicked” or taken out, because it was not part of mainstream Christianity, even in Origen’s day. Oh, and there was no big cover-up, either.
Denial
“Now denial is horrible thing to watch we’ve seen people deny 9-11 and that Obama is okay to run with out having to show his BC so we understand the problems of denial. Your either a believer in truth or not,…”
At this point, I would acknowledge to “Sane guy” that we can agree on something! He didn’t say so explicitly, but he implied that denying 9/11 is a denial of truth. Not sure if he was referring to a denial that the events happened — are there such people? — or just a refusal to believe the official story of what exactly happened and how. Either way, I would agree with him. He also seems to be saying that a belief that Obama should be able to legally get away with not providing a valid (long-form?) birth certificate is, in some sense, denying the truth. I can go along with that, too. (Though we’re sort of past the point where this matters much anymore, it did at the time of his comments.)
But, while I agree with the sentiment behind “You’re either a believer in truth or not,” ironically it is not entirely true. That is, regardless of our dedication to truth in general, we do not pursue all matters with equal effort, and we may agree on the truth of certain matters while disagreeing on others. That’s pretty obvious. And, we must accept that there are some things about which, while we may believe strongly that they are true (or false, as the case may be), it is possible we are mistaken. (Even me,… but not often. 😉 ) It comes with being finite and fallible creatures.
God of Love
“My God is the god of love not some monster looking to have revenge on the whole world for them not following mans rules made up by the corrupt Catholic church. A God of love does not condemn people to a hell because God is love.”
This is just more messed up, politically-correct, pseudo-theological baloney, combined with his distaste for Catholicism. I agree that the Roman Catholic Church as a whole has a mixed record on certain issues, many of its historical leaders are/were reprehensible, and I certainly disagree with several of its doctrines. But, the doctrine of Hell or, more basically, of God’s promise to punish those who disobey Him, cannot be attributed solely to the RCC. Rather, this is a fundamentally orthodox teaching that goes back to the beginning — not just of Christianity (i.e., Jesus and the Apostles) but of God’s dealings with Man. (See Part 1 for a bit more on this.)
Many people who claim to be “Christian” assert that God / Jesus Christ is/was all about love. I don’t know how they do it with any seriousness or integrity, but somehow they ignore or dismiss all the other stuff in the Bible about God’s holiness, the effrontery of sin (aka rebellion against God), and God’s demand for justice. (Have they ever read the Old Testament?) Regardless of your specific understanding of Hell, the Bible clearly teaches that it is very real. It is a place and/or state-of-being to which God Himself condemns those who reject Him to eternal punishment. Justice is carried out, and those people get exactly what they always wanted: separation from God’s presence.
As Bad as Islamic Jihadists
“[N]ow if those 2 things can coexist in your mind then you are sick and twisted and this is the kind of thing that leads to insane actions like suicide bombers and war mongering. You people who believe in hell are and are the lovers of evil because your insane beliefs lead you to commit violence and spread evil. The insane belief in hell is the cause of religious war and so it is a tool of the evil ones to manipulate people to do evil and from this all war is justified. You are Gods children would you take your child and cast them into a lake of fire?” (italics added)
Wow! Where to start? “Sane guy” asserts his opinion that a belief in Hell is the cause of (religious) wars, terrorism, and violence in general, making Christians and some Jews and others “just as bad as islamic jihadists.” The first thing I would do is point “Sane guy” to my posts about the mass genocides that Christians are supposedly guilty of over the centuries. (Hint: The accusations are grossly overexaggerated and, in some cases, simply not true.) Secondly, I would ask him where/when in the past hundred years or so there are or have been examples of orthodox Christians starting wars, committing violence, or “spread[ing] evil”, let alone those things being inspired by a doctrine of Hell. I am genuinely curious what he had in mind, ‘cuz I just don’t see it. As for Islamic jihadists, their actions are almost entirely unique to them, and their motivations cannot fairly be summarized as being merely about Hell.
I guess I am “sick and twisted”. But, by “Sane guy”‘s reckoning, Jesus and the Apostles must have been, as well. I kind of like that company, and I’ll take my chances with them over “Sane guy” any day of the week.
==========
[1] Wikipedia:
"Origen may or may not have believed in the Platonic teaching of metempsychosis ("the transmigration of souls"; i.e. reincarnation). He explicitly rejects "the false doctrine of the transmigration of souls into bodies", but this may refer only to a specific kind of transmigration. Geddes MacGregor has argued that Origen must have believed in metempsychosis because it makes sense within his eschatology and is never explicitly denied in the Bible. Roger E. Olson, however, dismisses the view that Origen believed in reincarnation as a New Age misunderstanding of Origen's teachings. It is certain that Origen rejected the Stoic notion of a cyclical universe, which is directly contrary to his eschatology...
[O]nly a tiny fraction of Origen's voluminous writings have survived.... It is likely that the writings containing Origen's most unusual and speculative ideas have been lost to time, making it nearly impossible to determine whether Origen actually held the heretical views which the anathemas against him ascribed to him."
[2] Wikipedia:
"An agreement was patched up and Vigilius agreed to a general council but soon withdrew his assent. Nevertheless, the council was held, and after refusing to accept the Constitutum of Vigilius, it then condemned the Three Chapters. Finally Vigilius succumbed, subscribed to the council, and was set free. But he died before reaching Italy, leaving his successor Pelagius the task of dealing with the schisms in the West."
[3] Wikipedia:
"[Early in the proceedings of the council, the bishops] ratified an open letter which condemned Origen as the leader of the Isochristoi. The letter was not part of the official acts of the council and it more or less repeated the edict issued by the Synod of Constantinople in 543....
The bishops drew up a list of anathemata against the heretical teachings contained within The Three Chapters and those associated with them. In the official text of the eleventh anathema, Origen is condemned as a Christological heretic, but Origen's name does not appear at all in the Homonoia, the first draft of the anathemata issued by the imperial chancery, nor does it appear in the version of the conciliar proceedings that was eventually signed by Pope Vigilius, a long time afterwards. These discrepancies may indicate that Origen's name may have been retrospectively inserted into the text after the Council. Some authorities believe these anathemata belong to an earlier local synod. Even if Origen's name did appear in the original text of the anathema, the teachings attributed to Origen that are condemned in the anathema were actually the ideas of later Origenists, which had very little grounding in anything Origen himself had actually written."
